Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Finely diced broccoli heated and mixed in fromage blanc and good Romano is tasty.

Btw, I’ll hear no ill of broccoli rabe sautéed in olive oil, red peppers and fresh garlic. None of that kind of talk.

Rabe is not broccoli. Broccoli is to rabe like Flower’s raw fish on vinegared rice is to sushi.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Dude, black Israelites and Nazis are not reacting to Israeli treatment of Palestinians. But Rave On!

Isn't he saying:

1. Anti-Zionism is not interchangeable with anti-semitism; and,
2. Anti-Zionism is not the cause of today’s attacks.

I may have misread. But I agree with both of those.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe you didn't get to this paragraph?



If it were true that anti-Zionism is surrogate anti-Semitism, which I do not believe, I nonetheless don't see it as motivating the attacks we have seen recently.

The article is way more analytical than Bret Stephens deserves. It's a fine article, but the real bottom line about Bret is that he's just a fucking racist (and subscriber to eugenic theories), plain and simple.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Can you please look at the Stephens piece in question and show me where any of your quoted section has anything to do with it?

Try the underlined and bold bit below, since you seem to have missed it when you read Stephens, read what I linked, and read what I quoted (assuming you read all three):

Stephens writes, “It’s no surprise that Jew hatred has made a comeback, albeit under new guises. Anti-Zionism has taken the place of anti-Semitism as a political program directed against Jews.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Dude, black Israelites and Nazis are not reacting to Israeli treatment of Palestinians. But Rave On!

Better question: Why is anyone writing about the “genius” of certain groups as Stephens did?

Are we at the low point now that people are taking victory laps for their arbitrary genetic and cultural inheritance? Let’s talk about who’s old money and who isn’t next!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Isn't he saying:

1. Anti-Zionism is not interchangeable with anti-semitism; and,
2. Anti-Zionism is not the cause of today’s attacks.

I may have misread. But I agree with both of those.

No, you got it. Not only is it true that "black Israelites and Nazis are not reacting to Israeli treatment of Palestinians," they are not responding to US critics of Israeli government policy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Better question: Why is anyone writing about the “genius” of certain groups as Stephens did?

Are we at the low point now that people are taking victory laps for their arbitrary genetic and cultural inheritance? Let’s talk about who’s old money and who isn’t next!

I did the family genealogy at one point and one of my favorite descriptions of a relative (not in the direct line, luckily) was "after causing much trouble, he went west and was never heard from again".

I may not be old money, but I am related to the first documented European settler convicted of a felony in North America (1608 in Quebec).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I did the family genealogy at one point and one of my favorite descriptions of a relative (not in the direct line, luckily) was "after causing much trouble, he went west and was never heard from again".

I may not be old money, but I am related to the first documented European settler convicted of a felony in North America (1608 in Quebec).

I’ve a great great uncle who killed a fellow and headed for Australia. I keep waiting for that genetic linkage to be made via that test I took some years ago.

I think a lot of this creepy interest in genealogy stems from those tests. Who cares where you’re from? You didn’t have anything to do with it.

I’ve actually had the Ashkenazi argument Stephens raised with a friend. It’s a very ugly discussion and not at all scientific in the true sense. Stephens seems a bitter person who knows he’s neither terribly bright nor terribly interesting, so I’m hardly surprised he’d write what he did.

Best to be a mutt in this world. Can’t be claimed or claim. There’s a ripe irony in Stephens being an anti-Trumper while being a dimwitted nativist who’d fit in with Trump’s silliest evangelical followers as well as the Adelson camp. Could there be a more useful idiot?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve a great great uncle who killed a fellow and headed for Australia. I keep waiting for that genetic linkage to be made via that test I took some years ago.

I think a lot of this creepy interest in genealogy stems from those tests. Who cares where you’re from? You didn’t have anything to do with it.

I’ve actually had the Ashkenazi argument Stephens raised with a friend. It’s a very ugly discussion and not at all scientific in the true sense. Stephens seems a bitter person who knows he’s neither terribly bright nor terribly interesting, so I’m hardly surprised he’d write what he did.

Best to be a mutt in this world. Can’t be claimed or claim. There’s a ripe irony in Stephens being an anti-Trumper while being a dimwitted nativist who’d fit in with Trump’s silliest evangelical followers as well as the Adelson camp. Could there be a more useful idiot?

There's such a powerful urge to believe that differences result from genetics rather than culture. Going back to Tyler Cowen's review of Charles Murray's latest, the evidence for that is really thin.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, you got it. Not only is it true that "black Israelites and Nazis are not reacting to Israeli treatment of Palestinians," they are not responding to US critics of Israeli government policy.

I wrote a lengthy thoughtful response but it got deleted. I’ll shorten to this- Jews are getting attacked on the streets and in temples. A guy (who might be a hateful fuck- I don’t waste my time reading this shit) wrote a piece trying to explain why Eastern European Jews might “win” so much in intellectual pursuits.

As an intro the guy raised why the increased hate is happening. Ty cites a blog that “responds” to the point by focusing on the single background sentence.

I’ve already shown Ty and his blogs have no idea what is up in Israel. But more importantly, Jews walking down the street here, trying to worship, they don’t care why people want to hate on them- they just want to live.

And I’m out. I like each of you “learned” people but always get bothered when you start talking about Jews.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I’ve already shown Ty and his blogs have no idea what is up in Israel. But more importantly, Jews walking down the street here, trying to worship, they don’t care why people want to hate on them- they just want to live.

And I’m out. I like each of you “learned” people but always get bothered when you start talking about Jews.

My point is very simple: Bret Stephens is wrong when he suggests that opposition to Israeli policies is somehow driving anti-Semitism in this country, and wrong in a way that's bad for the Jews. Nor was it good for the Jews for him to write a column relying on eugenicists suggesting that Ashkenazis are innately smarter than other people. If you are opposed to anti-Semitism (and I believe he is, fwiw), it's still a pretty shitty approach to argue that Jews don't deserve it because they're smarter than everyone else.

And I don't know what's bothering you -- that's really your problem, and I'm not sure I can help you with it -- but when I write posts about what's wrong with Bret Stephens and anti-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism, I'm not "talking about Jews."

As an intro the guy raised why the increased hate is happening. Ty cites a blog that “responds” to the point by focusing on the single background sentence.

Are you dense? The opening paragraph of Judis's piece (n.b. -- I believe Judis is Jewish, and TPM's founder certainly is) is:

After the poisonous response I got to my book, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origin of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, I vowed to stay out of discussions about Jews and Israel, but I keep breaking my resolution. Most recently it is over the coincidence of the anti-Semitic attacks in New Jersey and New York and New York Times’ columnist Bret Stephen’s column on Jews and anti-Semitism, in which he manages simultaneously to reinforce one of the historic tropes of anti-Semitism — that Jews are a superior race — and blame critics of Israel’s rightwing government for the outbreak of anti-Semitism.

Again, not sure what your problem is, but I would point out that everyone involved in this conversation: Stephens, Judis, you, me, Sebby seems to be acting (imo) out of good faith and genuine commitment to avoiding what is bad for the Jews.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Am I the only person who detests eggplant? The seeds and texture are gross. Same goes for kiwi fruit.

I am allergic to eggplant. I get a violent stomachache if I eat it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My point is very simple: Bret Stephens is wrong when he suggests that opposition to Israeli policies is somehow driving anti-Semitism in this country, and wrong in a way that's bad for the Jews. Nor was it good for the Jews for him to write a column relying on eugenicists suggesting that Ashkenazis are innately smarter than other people. If you are opposed to anti-Semitism (and I believe he is, fwiw), it's still a pretty shitty approach to argue that Jews don't deserve it because they're smarter than everyone else.

And I don't know what's bothering you -- that's really your problem, and I'm not sure I can help you with it -- but when I write posts about what's wrong with Bret Stephens and anti-Semitism and anti-anti-Semitism, I'm not "talking about Jews."

Why do Jews win so many Nobels? The only point of his piece.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Again, not sure what your problem is, but I would point out that everyone involved in this conversation: Stephens, Judis, you, me, Sebby seems to be acting (imo) out of good faith and genuine commitment to avoiding what is bad for the Jews.

i appreciate the concern. My point is several people on your list should just shut up because they don’t know what they are talking about. But we all do appreciate the concern for the well being of the Jews you bring.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There's such a powerful urge to believe that differences result from genetics rather than culture. Going back to Tyler Cowen's review of Charles Murray's latest, the evidence for that is really thin.

I’ve read the arguments that cooperation and competition were evolutionary advantages. I’ve yet to read the compelling argument that they aren’t far more exclusive than they are complimentary. There’s a deep, innate impulse to find alliances and enemies. I can’t help thinking this lizard brain predisposition underpins the genetic “science” Stephens raises.

And this is without considering the dubious value of IQ. Most of success today is, as Cohen notes in another book, comprised of conscientiousness, organizational skills, and luck. The last is impossible to measure. The first two are more discipline than high mental function. If anything, they may indicate for slightly lower intelligence, as they demonstrate capacity to endure the mundane at a level a higher intelligence would find insufferable.

To assert IQ is a supremely valuable measure or to even backhandedly suggest an historically oppressed group has an above average IQ, which must invite the suggestion the high IQ is in part the basis for the oppression, are arguments too dumb to engage.